Literature DB >> 25297947

Development of a tiered and binned genetic counseling model for informed consent in the era of multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility.

Angela R Bradbury1, Linda Patrick-Miller2, Jessica Long3, Jacquelyn Powers3, Jill Stopfer3, Andrea Forman4, Christina Rybak4, Kristin Mattie5, Amanda Brandt3, Rachelle Chambers6, Wendy K Chung7, Jane Churpek6, Mary B Daly4, Laura Digiovanni3, Dana Farengo-Clark5, Dominique Fetzer3, Pamela Ganschow8, Generosa Grana5, Cassandra Gulden6, Michael Hall4, Lynne Kohler3, Kara Maxwell3, Shana Merrill9, Susan Montgomery4, Rebecca Mueller3, Sarah Nielsen6, Olufunmilayo Olopade2, Kimberly Rainey4, Christina Seelaus8, Katherine L Nathanson10, Susan M Domchek11.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Multiplex genetic testing, including both moderate- and high-penetrance genes for cancer susceptibility, is associated with greater uncertainty than traditional testing, presenting challenges to informed consent and genetic counseling. We sought to develop a new model for informed consent and genetic counseling for four ongoing studies.
METHODS: Drawing from professional guidelines, literature, conceptual frameworks, and clinical experience, a multidisciplinary group developed a tiered-binned genetic counseling approach proposed to facilitate informed consent and improve outcomes of cancer susceptibility multiplex testing.
RESULTS: In this model, tier 1 "indispensable" information is presented to all patients. More specific tier 2 information is provided to support variable informational needs among diverse patient populations. Clinically relevant information is "binned" into groups to minimize information overload, support informed decision making, and facilitate adaptive responses to testing. Seven essential elements of informed consent are provided to address the unique limitations, risks, and uncertainties of multiplex testing.
CONCLUSION: A tiered-binned model for informed consent and genetic counseling has the potential to address the challenges of multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility and to support informed decision making and adaptive responses to testing. Future prospective studies including patient-reported outcomes are needed to inform how to best incorporate multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility into clinical practice.Genet Med 17 6, 485-492.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25297947      PMCID: PMC4983405          DOI: 10.1038/gim.2014.134

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  38 in total

1.  Anticipate and communicate: Ethical management of incidental and secondary findings in the clinical, research, and direct-to-consumer contexts (December 2013 report of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues).

Authors:  Christine Weiner
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 2.  Assessment of the content and process of genetic counseling: a critical review of empirical studies.

Authors:  Bettina Meiser; Jennifer Irle; Elizabeth Lobb; Kristine Barlow-Stewart
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2008-09-13       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  The evolution of cancer risk assessment in the era of next generation sequencing.

Authors:  Heather Fecteau; Kristen J Vogel; Kristen Hanson; Shannon Morrill-Cornelius
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-04-24       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Clinical decisions. Screening an asymptomatic person for genetic risk.

Authors:  Wylie Burke; David Dimmock
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Essential elements of genetic cancer risk assessment, counseling, and testing: updated recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Authors:  Bronson D Riley; Julie O Culver; Cécile Skrzynia; Leigha A Senter; June A Peters; Josephine W Costalas; Faith Callif-Daley; Sherry C Grumet; Katherine S Hunt; Rebecca S Nagy; Wendy C McKinnon; Nancie M Petrucelli; Robin L Bennett; Angela M Trepanier
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Who profits from visual aids: overcoming challenges in people's understanding of risks [corrected].

Authors:  Rocio Garcia-Retamero; Mirta Galesic
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2010-01-28       Impact factor: 4.634

7.  Models of service delivery for cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling.

Authors:  Angela M Trepanier; Dawn C Allain
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-10-26       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  What do patients prefer: informed consent models for genetic carrier testing.

Authors:  K E Ormond; M Iris; S Banuvar; J Minogue; G J Annas; S Elias
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-05-11       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 9.  Using visual aids to improve communication of risks about health: a review.

Authors:  Rocio Garcia-Retamero; Yasmina Okan; Edward T Cokely
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2012-05-02

10.  What does it mean to be genomically literate?: National Human Genome Research Institute Meeting Report.

Authors:  Belen Hurle; Toby Citrin; Jean F Jenkins; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Neil Lamb; Jo Ellen Roseman; Vence L Bonham
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  36 in total

1.  Understanding of multigene test results among males undergoing germline testing for inherited prostate cancer: Implications for genetic counseling.

Authors:  Veda N Giri; Elias Obeid; Sarah E Hegarty; Laura Gross; Lisa Bealin; Colette Hyatt; Carolyn Y Fang; Amy Leader
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2018-04-14       Impact factor: 4.104

2.  Incidental or secondary findings: an integrative and patient-inclusive approach to the current debate.

Authors:  Marlies Saelaert; Heidi Mertes; Elfride De Baere; Ignaas Devisch
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 3.  Interdisciplinary Models for Research and Clinical Endeavors in Genomic Medicine: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Authors:  Kiran Musunuru; Pankaj Arora; John P Cooke; Jane F Ferguson; Ray E Hershberger; Kathleen T Hickey; Jin-Moo Lee; João A C Lima; Joseph Loscalzo; Naveen L Pereira; Mark W Russell; Svati H Shah; Farah Sheikh; Thomas J Wang; Calum A MacRae
Journal:  Circ Genom Precis Med       Date:  2018-06

4.  Psychological outcomes and surgical decisions after genetic testing in women newly diagnosed with breast cancer with and without a family history.

Authors:  Bettina Meiser; Veronica F Quinn; Gillian Mitchell; Kathy Tucker; Kaaren J Watts; Belinda Rahman; Michelle Peate; Christobel Saunders; Elizabeth Geelhoed; Margaret Gleeson; Kristine Barlow-Stewart; Michael Field; Marion Harris; Yoland C Antill; Rachel Susman; Michael T Bowen; Llew Mills; Judy Kirk
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-03-30       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Preferences for in-person disclosure: Patients declining telephone disclosure characteristics and outcomes in the multicenter Communication Of GENetic Test Results by Telephone study.

Authors:  Nina Beri; Linda J Patrick-Miller; Brian L Egleston; Michael J Hall; Susan M Domchek; Mary B Daly; Pamela Ganschow; Generosa Grana; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Dominique Fetzer; Amanda Brandt; Rachelle Chambers; Dana F Clark; Andrea Forman; Rikki Gaber; Cassandra Gulden; Janice Horte; Jessica Long; Terra Lucas; Shreshtha Madaan; Kristin Mattie; Danielle McKenna; Susan Montgomery; Sarah Nielsen; Jacquelyn Powers; Kim Rainey; Christina Rybak; Michelle Savage; Christina Seelaus; Jessica Stoll; Jill E Stopfer; Xinxin Shirley Yao; Angela R Bradbury
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2018-12-07       Impact factor: 4.438

6.  Effective communication in the era of precision medicine: A pilot intervention with low health literacy patients to improve genetic counseling communication.

Authors:  Galen Joseph; Robin Lee; Rena J Pasick; Claudia Guerra; Dean Schillinger; Sara Rubin
Journal:  Eur J Med Genet       Date:  2018-12-13       Impact factor: 2.708

7.  Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Disclosure of Germline Cancer Genetic Test Results.

Authors:  Angela R Bradbury; Linda J Patrick-Miller; Brian L Egleston; Michael J Hall; Susan M Domchek; Mary B Daly; Pamela Ganschow; Generosa Grana; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Dominique Fetzer; Amanda Brandt; Rachelle Chambers; Dana F Clark; Andrea Forman; Rikki Gaber; Cassandra Gulden; Janice Horte; Jessica M Long; Terra Lucas; Shreshtha Madaan; Kristin Mattie; Danielle McKenna; Susan Montgomery; Sarah Nielsen; Jacquelyn Powers; Kim Rainey; Christina Rybak; Michelle Savage; Christina Seelaus; Jessica Stoll; Jill E Stopfer; Xinxin Shirley Yao
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Cancer Genetic Counseling and Testing in an Era of Rapid Change.

Authors:  Gillian W Hooker; Keelia Rhoads Clemens; John Quillin; Kristen J Vogel Postula; Pia Summerour; Rebecca Nagy; Adam H Buchanan
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-04-22       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  "Not Tied Up Neatly with a Bow": Professionals' Challenging Cases in Informed Consent for Genomic Sequencing.

Authors:  Ashley N Tomlinson; Debra Skinner; Denise L Perry; Sarah R Scollon; Myra I Roche; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-04-26       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 10.  Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer Position statement on multigene panel testing for patients with colorectal cancer and/or polyposis.

Authors:  Brandie Heald; Heather Hampel; James Church; Beth Dudley; Michael J Hall; Maureen E Mork; Aparajita Singh; Elena Stoffel; Jessica Stoll; Y Nancy You; Matthew B Yurgelun; Sonia S Kupfer
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 2.375

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.